Los procedimientos simplificados que se establezcan con arreglo al apartado 2 se comunicarán a la Comisión

The Code of Conduct for The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief, was developed and agreed upon by eight of the word’s largest disaster response agencies in the summer of 1994.

The Code of Conduct, like most professional codes, is a voluntary one. It lays down ten points of principle which all humanitarian actors should adhere to in their disaster response work, and goes on to describe the relationships that agencies working in disasters should seek with donor govenments, host governments and the UN system.

The code is self-policing. There is as yet no international association for disaster-response NGOs which possesses any authority to sanction its members. The Code of Conduct continues to be used by the International Federation to monitor its own standards of relief delivery and to encourage other agencies to set similar standards.

It is hoped that humanitarian actors around the world will commit themselves publicly to the code by becoming a signaroty and by abiding by its principles. Governments and donor organizations may want to use the code as a yardstick against which to measure the conduct of those agencies with which they work. Disaster-affected communities have a right to expect that those who assist them measure up to these standards.

Principles of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Response Programmes

1. The humanitarian imperative comes first.

2. Aid is given regardless of the race, creed or nationality of the

recipients and without adverse distinction of any kind. Aid priorities are calculated on the basis of need alone.

3. Aid will not be used to further a particular political or religious

standpoint.

4. We shall endeavour not to act as instruments of government

foreing policy.

5. We shall respect culture and custom.

6. We shall attempt to build disaster response on local capacities. 7. Ways shall be found to involve programme beneficiaries in the

management of relief aid.

8. Relief aid must strive to reduce future vulnerabilities to

disaster as well as meeting basic needs.

9. We hold ourselves accountable to both those we seek to assist

and those from whom we accept resources.

10. In our information, publicity and advertising activities, we

shall recognize disaster victims as dignified human beings, not hopeless objects.

Appendix 2 Different Definitions

of Talent

Different definitions of “talent”

(Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013) Modified with additions (Tansley 2012, and Dries 2013) by the author of the focal study.

Source (as presented by authors) Definition

Gagné (2000) “(…) superior mastery of systematically developed

abilities or skills” (p. 67)

Williams (2000) “describe those people who do one or other of

the following: regularly demonstrate exceptional ability – and achievement – either over a range of activities and situations, or within a specialized and narrow field of expertise; consistently indicate high competence in areas of activity that strongly suggest transferable, comparable ability in situations where they have yet to be tested and proved to be highly effective, i.e. potential.” (p. 35)

Buckingham and Vosburgh (2001) “Talent should refer to a person’s recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied.” (p. 21)

Jericó (2001) “The implemented capacity of a committed

professional or group of professionals that achieve superior results in a particular environment and organization.” (p. 428; translation ours) Michaels et al. (2001) “(…) the sum of a person’s abilities—his or her

intrinsic gifts, skills, knowledge, experience, intelligence, judgment, attitude, character and drive. It also includes his or her ability to learn and grow.” (p. xii)

Lewis and Heckman (2006) “(…) is essentially a euphemism for ‘people’” (p. 141) Tansley, Harris, Stewart, and Turner (2006) “Talent can be considered as a complex amalgam

of employees’ skills, knowledge, cognitive ability and potential. Employees’ values and work preferences are also of major importance.” (p. 2)

Stahl et al. (2007) “a select group of employees – those that rank at the top in terms of capability and performance – rather than the entire workforce”. (p. 4)

Tansley et al. (2007) “Talent consists of those individuals who can make a difference to organizational performance, either through their immediate contribution or in the longer- term by demonstrating the highest levels of potential.” (p. 8)

Ulrich (2007) “Talent equals competence [able to do the job] times

commitment [willing to do the job] times contribution [finding meaning and purpose in their work]” (p. 3) Cheese, Thomas, and Craig (2008) “Essentially, talent means the total of all the

experience, knowledge, skills, and behaviours that a person has and brings to work.” (p. 46)

González-Cruz et al. (2009) “A set of competencies that, being developed and applied, allow the person to perform a certain role in an excellent way.” (p 22; translation ours) “ Silzer and Dowell (2010) (…) in some cases, ‘the talent’ might refer to the

entire employee population.” (p. 14)

Silzer and Dowell (2010) “In groups talent can refer to a pool of employees who are exceptional in their skills and abilities either in a specific technical area (such as software graphics skills) or a competency (such a consumer marketing talent), or a more general area (such as general managers or high-potential talent). And in some cases, “the talent” might refer to the entire employee population.” (pp. 13–14)

Silzer and Dowell (2010) “An individual’s skills and abilities (talents) and what the person is capable of doing or contributing to the organization.” (p. 14)

Ulrich and Smallwood (2012) “Talent = competence [knowledge, skills and values required for todays’ and tomorrows’ job; right skills, right place, right job, right time] × commitment [willing to do the job] × contribution [finding meaning and purpose in their job]” (p. 60)

Bethke-Langenegger (2012) “we understand talent to be one of those workers who ensures the competitiveness and future of a company (as specialist or leader) through his organisational/job specific qualification and knowledge, his social and methodical competencies, and his characteristic attributes such as eager to learn or achievement oriented” (p. 3)

Tansley (2011) There is no single or universal contemporary

definition of ‘‘talent’’ in any one language; there are different organisational perspectives of talent. Current meanings of talent tend to be specific to an organisation and highly influenced by the nature of the work undertaken. A shared organisational language for talent is important. There is high level of influence of management consultants in the development of the term in managing people with unique knowledge and skills.

Dries (2013) Talent can mean different things to different people

(e.g., researchers, companies, HR practitioners, individual employees), and considering the immature state of the field it is difficult, at this point in time, to evaluate which meanings of talent are ‘more valid’ than others. Depending on the theoretical framework you use, the population you wish to study, and the academic discipline you aim to contribute to, your talent management project might look very different from other, pre-existing work.